Beverly Jones to Michelle Schneider re: HB 151

From Beverly Jones, June 4, 2007
Subject: HB 151

Dear Rep. Schneider,

Thank you for your May 24 response to my last email. I was sightseeing at the Statehouse and stopped by the Clerk's office. I had a delightful conversation with Ruth M. Royal, who was extremely helpful about how to see the House chambers on a day it wasn't in session, among other things. Next time I visit, I'll try to come on a day I can finally meet you.

I write this knowing that you voted "for" HB 151 in the FIRES committee after a few minor revisions were added. However, I humbly ask that you reconsider your "yes" vote before Sub HB 151 comes to a vote in the House on Tuesday. I have many reasons; here are a few.

1. Every teacher contributes, through payroll deduction, a percentage of their income to the STRS fund. I assume, probably correctly, that also goes for the members of the other four retirement systems. The retired teachers and other retirees also did this when they were teaching. Therefore, that is OUR money, just as much as the money we put in 403b accounts or tax-sheltered annuities or healthcare premiums, also through payroll deduction, belongs to us. Therefore, I question whether HB 151 is even legal or ethical.

2. HB 151 still asks TOO MUCH OF TOO FEW. It only applies to STRS, SERS, PERS, the highway patrol, and fire & police. NOT mutual funds. NOT the Ohio Tuition Trust Authority. NOT the Ohio Public Employees Deferred Compensation Program. NOT higher education's Alternative Retirement Plans. (And presumably NOT K-12 ARP's either - - hmmm, and just as HB 152 is in the works.) If it's risky and/or immoral for the five state pension systems, then it's also risky and/or immoral for the other funds. HB 151 needs to have everyone share the burden, not target just a few selected, unfortunate retirees.

3. The financial advisors and investment staff at each of the five state pension systems already assess the risks of investing in stocks. What they are obliged to be concerned about is maintaining stability of the fund and making profits for the members. If someone says that the risk assessment isn't being done or isn't being done properly, then it is up to the accusers to prove it by showing us what an offical audit concludes.

4. Investment profits fund healthcare for retirees. There is already a problem with healthcare costs. This bill does nothing to help us with healthcare. Retirees are already suffering with the high costs of healthcare, gas, groceries, and everything else. They do not need to be the only ones fighting international terrorism!

5. The Ohio Retirement Study Council voted 17:5 against HB 151. None of the five state pension systems is in favor of it. Yet it's being paraded through the General Assembly. You have had much testimony by experts against HB 151, including Damon Asbury and Steve Mitchell of STRS. I have read their testimony online. How can anyone disregard all that the opposition has pointed out? Unlike the pro-HB 151 side, the opposition has provided facts and figures for a cost/benefit analysis. Furthermore, the OFT and OEA are against it. The Columbus Dispatch, Cleveland Plain Dealer, and Akron Beacon Journal have written very critical editorials against HB 151. How can a bill with so much broad-based opposition still make it this far, unless it's really all about playing politics?

6. The supporters must agree with the rest of us that there will inevitably be big losses incurred with the passage of HB 151 because there is a provision that prohibits lawsuits.

7. Those who have testified against HB 151, as well as others, have made reference to the unfunded liability of the various state pension systems. For example, I believe STRS' previous unfunded liability was in the mid-50's, which was very bad. That was not that long ago. Now, since last summer if I remember correctly, the unfunded liability is 47.2 years - better but still not so good. It should be 30 years. But if HB 151 becomes law, the unfunded liability is anticipated to soar to over 79 years. As you well know, a high unfunded liability shows that there are major financial problems and has serious ramifications for providing healthcare to the retirees.

8. There will be huge, major costs (and I don't have the estimates at hand at the moment) for compliance with HB 151 - costs that will be borne by the active and retired members of the five state pension systems. Nowhere in Sub HB 51 is there a provision for the state to offset those losses. Ultimately, when Ohio has thousands upon thousands of public retirees unable to afford their gas, food, prescription drugs, doctor visits, etc., there will be a backlash. There will be more on food stamps or other assistance. People could lose their homes. It will be devastating. Expecting old people who can no longer work full-time to bear the burden is in no way "compassionate."

9. I feel that *some people* who are for HB 151 sometimes insinuate that the opposition may want to support terrorism. That is highly insulting, and so very untrue. We just want to keep the primary goal the same: fiduciary responsibility - not international relations. The fact that there are
*some* Ohio funds that are not included in HB 151 makes the pro-HB 151 argument hypocritical. If they don't want the five state pension funds to "support terrorism," then why would they allow mutual funds, the Ohio Tuition Trust Authority, the Ohio Public Employees Deferred Compensation Program, and the Alternative Retirement Plans to support terrorism!!! Again, share the burden, and I'll believe the sponsors and supporters of HB 151 aren't trying to do something else, i.e., slowly but surely destroy the public pensions.

Thank you for this consideration. I still do not like HB 151, as you can tell. And I am still a proud, patriotic American whose ancestors have fought for this great nation, from Valley Forge (Pvt. Jacob Dooley, 5th VA regiment) to the Iraq Civil War in Baghdad. I don't like terrorism, either, but we need to make financial decisions based upon reason, not emotions. Trotting out "support our troops" to pass a bad bill is appealing to emotion.

Even if I don't change your mind, thank you for reading this message. If it passes the House, we'll be writing our state senators.

Sincerely, Beverly Jones
Harlan Twp., Warren County